SPEIAL EDUATION IN ALIFORNIA - Charter school · TALE OF ONTENTS Contents Executive Summary_____ 1...
40
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS: ALL STUDENTS WELCOME April 2015
Transcript of SPEIAL EDUATION IN ALIFORNIA - Charter school · TALE OF ONTENTS Contents Executive Summary_____ 1...
SPECIAL EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS: ALL STUDENTS WELCOME
April 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Executive Summary ______________________________________________________________________________________ 1
Charter Schools and Special Education ________________________________________________________________ 5
Overview of Policy Landscape __________________________________________________________________________ 9
Changes to Policy Landscape ___________________________________________________________________________ 13
Connecting Policy and Data ____________________________________________________________________________ 16
Analyses and Findings __________________________________________________________________________________ 17
Conclusions and Recommendations ___________________________________________________________________ 25
Acknowledgements and Contacts _____________________________________________________________________ 30
Appendices ______________________________________________________________________________________________ 31
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 1
Executive Summary
CHARTER SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Charter public schools are often criticized for serving fewer students with disabilities
than traditional public schools. Opponents often assume that this is due to charters
denying access to difficult-to-serve students; however, very few studies examine the
factors that contribute to differences in enrollment. Two recent studies concluded that
parent choice, as well as school practices for classifying and educating students with
differing needs, have a major impact on special education enrollment in charter schools,
effectively defying some of the persistent myths around special education in charter
schools1,2. This study adds to this growing body of research by examining the effect a
charter school’s legal identity has on the percentage and range of students with
disabilities served in California charter schools.
Under California law, charter schools have two options for special education legal
identity: operating as part of an existing Local Education Agency (LEA) or operating as its
own independent LEA for special education purposes as a member of a Special Education
Local Plan Area (SELPA).3 The charter school’s legal identity has major implications for
its access to special education funding, infrastructure, and authority over placement
decisions for students with disabilities, which in turn have a significant impact on the
enrollment of students with disabilities.
By default, charter schools in California function as part of their authorizing LEA (or as
“schools of the district”) which renders them dependent on their authorizer for the
special education supports and services. This dependency prevents charters from
accessing special education funding, hiring special education staff, participating in SELPA
1 “Why the Gap? Special Education and New York City Charter Schools”, Marcus A. Winters, CRPE, September 2013 2 “Understanding the Charter School Special Education Gap: Evidence from Denver, Colorado”, Marcus A. Winters, CRPE, June 2014. 3 There is sometimes confusion in the field in regards to charter LEA status for fiscal purposes (which is defined in EC §47651(a) and refers to charters receiving their total general purpose entitlement directly) and LEA for special education purposes. For the purposes of this paper, LEA status refers only to the special education designation as defined in EC §47641(a).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 2
governance, and designing and implementing their own programs to meet the needs of a
broad range of students.
Charter schools in California were first able to become LEAs for special education in 2006
when the State Board of Education approved a pilot program involving 22 schools in 4
SELPAs. In 2010, the pilot status was removed, and charters statewide were allowed to
achieve greater autonomy and flexibility in special education through by becoming their
own LEAs for special education purposes.
Shortly after, in 2011, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Board of
Education approved a reorganization of the LAUSD SELPA, giving increased autonomy
and flexibility to charter schools in the areas of funding, service provision and
governance in an “LEA-like” 4 arrangement (called Option 3 or Charter Operated
Program). These decisions have altered fundamentally the policy landscape and proven
to offer the appropriate structure for charter schools to serve a higher percentage and a
broader range of students with disabilities. Additionally, these changes to the policy
landscape have allowed charter schools to become fully autonomous in all areas and
embrace the innovation that is inherent to the charter school movement.
Charter schools that become LEAs for special education purposes increase the
percentage and range of students with disabilities they serve. Charter schools that are
LEAs in the El Dorado Charter SELPA, which represent nearly 70% of all charter LEAs in
the state, increased the percentage of students with disabilities from 7.5% in 2010-11 to
8.7% in 2013-14 (as compared to 10.3% of K-12 statewide enrollment). Most notably,
they have achieved a 55% increase in the percentage of students with more severe
disabilities. The gap between the proportion of students with disabilities in LEA charter
schools and the average proportion of students with disabilities in K-12 schools
statewide has steadily narrowed from 2.4% in 2010-11to 1.6% in 2013-14.
The number of independent LEA charters for special education purposes increased to
over 25% of charters in 2013-14. However, LEA status comes with additional
responsibility, liability, and risk, which limits the number of charter schools prepared to
take on this option.
4 “LEA-like” is a term that CCSA uses to describe an arrangement that allows charter schools similar access to special education funding and responsibility for special education service provision without actually exiting their authorizer’s SELPA and becoming their own LEA for special education.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 3
LEA-like arrangements, such as Option 3 in LAUSD, allow charters the autonomy to
manage their programs and safety to manage their risk. While operating as part of an
existing LEA, charters in Option 3 have access to the majority of their funding, participate
in the governance structure, have autonomy over service provision, and have access to
funding pools to share services and invest in critical special education infrastructure.
Similar to charter LEAs for special education, the autonomy provided by LEA-like status
allows charter school members to serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities.
Between 2010-11 and 2013-14, LEA-like schools increased the percentage of students
with disabilities they serve from 8.1% to 10.2% (as compared to 11.7% of district's K-12
enrollment). Overall student enrollment in Option 3 increased by 96%, from 26,164 to
51,251 students; at the same time, the number of students with disabilities grew by
147%, from 2,114 to 5,215 students. There was also a 35% increase in the proportion of
students in more severe disability categories.
We are encouraged by the growth in special education in charter schools and offer a
number of recommendations to ensure that more charter schools can build the necessary
infrastructure to serve all students.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue to address systemic barriers to autonomy
Charter schools in California continue to face barriers to autonomy in special
education, which has a direct impact on their ability to serve a larger percentage
and range of students with disabilities. The vast majority of SELPAs in the state
still do not accept charter schools as LEAs for special education due to funding
and governance considerations. Charter authorizers have financial disincentives
to develop special education programs on charter school sites. Funding levels for
special education services vary greatly across the state, and are grossly
inadequate. As a result, most charter schools do not have access to special
education funding or appropriate services. We recommend that legislators and
policymakers address these challenges by providing equitable and adequate
special education funding to charter schools and authorizers through a system
that prioritizes accountability, local control, and responsiveness to evolving needs
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 4
of students. This recommendation closely aligns with the recommendations of the
recently-convened Statewide Special Education Task Force.5
Create opportunities to build infrastructure and mitigate risk
Achieving an LEA or LEA-like status removes structural barriers to charter school
autonomy in special education. However, it does not create the critical
infrastructure needed to provide a full continuum of services. In fact, very few
traditional district-operated schools are equipped to serve every student and
often rely on the district or SELPA infrastructure for regionalized, specialized, and
more costly services. Thus, we recommend that the charter schools that gain
special education autonomy work to create economies of scale by establishing
charter school consortia and creating service-sharing and risk-sharing structures.
Concurrently, we recommend that more local authorizers work with charter
schools to create innovative LEA-like arrangements to ensure that charter schools
can continue to serve more students with disabilities.
Continue to study the underlying causes of the special education gap and
examine connections between school practices and student outcomes
In addition to legal status, the differences in school practices also affect the
percentage of students classified for special education.1,2 We recommend
conducting additional analyses of enrollment over time, identification,
intervention, and service provision of special education in charter schools and the
impact of those factors on student outcomes. More specifically, we recommend
delving into the following questions:
How do differences in school classification practices and parent choice
affect the percentage of students with disabilities in California charters?
What is the impact of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, Response to
Intervention, or other innovative and proactive service-delivery models on
identification rates and student outcomes? 6
5 One System: Reforming Education to Serve All Students, Report of California’s Statewide Task Force on Special Education, March 2015. 6 This question is of particular interest as it also echoes the priority areas in the Task Force report.
CHARTER SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Page 5
Charter Schools and Special Education
Special education in charter schools is one of the major hot-button issues in the
education debate both in California and across the nation. Despite impressive gains that
California charter schools have shown over the years by generating extra weeks and
months of learning for traditionally underserved students7, the provision of special
education (or lack thereof) still remains a point of contention between charter school
advocates and opponents. In fact, one cannot have a conversation about charter schools
without someone inevitably stating, “But charter schools do not serve students with
disabilities, right?”
Contributing to this misperception are excerpts from major publications, which are
peppered with misguided quotes such as: “In Oakland, the nearly 40 charter schools educate relatively few of Oakland’s highest-needs
students […] This means that charter schools can have a financial and academic edge over
traditional public schools, given that special-needs students typically require costly services and
post test scores and graduation rates well below other students”8
And even seemingly independent research groups cannot resist issuing sweeping
condemnations (based on a sample size of just 25 students), such as:
“Only 20 percent of students classified as requiring special education services who started
kindergarten in charter schools remained in the same school after three years.” 9
7 Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), Charter School Performance in California, Stanford University, February 2014 8 “Oakland: Fewer special-needs students in charter schools”, Jill Tucker, San Francisco Chronicle, November 18, 2013. This article does not take into account that nearly half of the charter schools in Oakland function as schools of an LEA for special education and have no authority over their special education programs. Furthermore, charter schools contribute a substantial amount of money (nearly $900 per student) to districtwide special education costs. Charters that have left their district SELPA and achieved LEA status for special education are approaching the statewide average percentage and range of students with disabilities. 9 “Staying or Going? Comparing Student Attrition Rates at Charter Schools with Nearby Traditional Public Schools”, New York City Independent Budget Office, January, 2014. Following the study, New York City Charter School Center CEO James Merriman said the study included a sample of just 25 charter students with special needs. In January of 2015, after completing an additional year of research, the NYC IBO issued a report completely reversing their previous findings and admitting that students with disabilities actually remained at their charter schools at a higher rate than similar students at nearby traditional public schools.
CHARTER SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Page 6
What fuels this debate? Generally, it is the prima facie comparison of average enrollment
levels of students with disabilities
between traditional and charter
public schools. The challenge with
such comparisons is that they do
not take into account specific
policy landscapes in which charter
schools operate or acknowledge
that the charter school sector does
not serve students beyond K-12,
while the traditional sector does.
Most damaging, however, is that enrollment comparisons do not provide any insight into
the factors that create these differences.
In 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report stating that
charter schools nationwide enrolled a lower percentage of students with disabilities than
traditional public schools (8.2% compared to 11.2%). 10 The GAO itself acknowledged,
“Little is known about the factors contributing to these differences.” Critics assume that it
is due to charter schools “counseling out” difficult-to-serve students. They insist that
charter schools knowingly, maliciously, and systemically refuse access to those students
who need it most. If that were the case, it would be a civil rights issue deserving of public
outrage and policymakers’ immediate, undivided attention. However, before we legislate
special education enrollment targets11 or call for a moratorium on charter schools, let us
carefully examine the reasons behind the discrepancy. This closer look is necessary to
help us move away from a place of pointing fingers and to a place where we can make
meaningful, sustainable gains for our state’s most vulnerable students.
A small handful of studies related to special education in charter schools have been
conducted in recent years. A report titled “Why the Gap? Special Education and New York
10 Charter Schools: Additional Federal Attention Needed to Help Protect Access for Students with Disabilities, June 2012 11 In 2010, the New York State Charter Schools Act was amended to require charter authorizers to set enrollment and attendance targets for students with disabilities. Critics of the law suggest that it creates “perverse incentives” for charter schools to “over-identify” students in high-needs categories. (See New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis, CRPE, 2012)
Comparisons of enrollment of students with
disabilities between traditional and charter
sectors do not take into account specific policy
landscapes in which charter schools operate or
examine the factors that contribute to these
differences.
CHARTER SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Page 7
City Charter Schools”12 by the Center for Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) examines
the classification and mobility rates of a large sample of students with IEPs across public
school sectors (traditional and charter). The analysis reveals several groundbreaking
findings:
1) “Students with disabilities […]are less likely to apply to charter schools in
kindergarten than are regular enrollment students;” and
2) “Charter schools are less likely than district schools to classify students as in need
of special education services and more likely to declassify them.”6
Further, the study undermines the myth that charter schools systemically refuse to admit
or consistently push out students with special needs. In fact, the study reports, “more
students with previously identified disabilities enter charter schools than exit them as
they progress through elementary grade levels.”6
A study in Denver shows a
similar gap in special education
enrollment between traditional
and charter schools, and “like in
New York City, that gap has little
to do with students with special
needs leaving charter schools.” 13
Again, the study finds that the enrollment gap is largely attributable to parent choice and
school practices for classifying and educating students with differing needs.
The factors described above provide great insight as we begin to grasp the underlying
causes for the “special education gap” between the traditional and charter public school
enrollment of students with disabilities. This report will build upon the growing body of
research by examining another variable that affects enrollment of students with
disabilities in charter schools. That variable is sometimes referred to as a “legal
12 “Why the Gap Special Education and New York City Charter Schools”, Marcus A. Winters, CRPE, September 2013. 13 “Understanding the Charter School Special Education Gap: Evidence from Denver, Colorado”, Marcus A. Winters, CRPE, June 2014.
Research indicates that charter schools are not
refusing to admit or pushing out students with
special needs. In fact, more students with
disabilities enter charter schools than exit them.
CHARTER SCHOOLS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
Page 8
identity”14—which indicates the level of dependency of a charter school on its authorizer
as it relates to special education. The current federal law15 allows a charter school to be
either (1) part of a Local Education Agency (LEA) or (2) an independent LEA, depending
on the state in which it is located. The option the charter school belongs to has significant
implications for access to special education funding, ability to build special education
infrastructure, and authority over placement decisions for students with disabilities.
California is one of only two places in the nation (D.C. is the other) where charter school
law permits schools to choose their legal identity.16 This unique flexibility positions us to
examine the implications of that legal identity on the percentage and range of students
with disabilities enrolled in California charter schools and to contribute another
perspective to this critical debate.
14 “Special Education Challenges and Opportunities in the Charter School Sector”, Lauren M.Rhim, CRPE, February 2008 15 34 CFR Section. 300.312 16 CA Ed Code §47641
OVERVIEW OF POLICY LANDSCAPE
Page 9
Overview of Policy Landscape
SPECIAL EDUCATION STRUCTURES IN CALIFORNIA
The state of California has a unique structure for funding and delivering services for
students with disabilities. In 1977, as part of California’s Master Plan for Special
Education, all Local Education Agencies (LEAs) were mandated to form Special Education
Local Plan Areas (SELPAs), or intermediate administrative entities that function as
consortiums within specific geographic areas. The SELPAs support member LEAs in the
implementation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and related legal
requirements associated with special education and ensures that all students with
disabilities have access to the necessary range of educational programs. It is important to
note that the term “LEA” is sometimes applied to charter schools for fiscal purposes,
denoting those charters that receive their general purpose entitlement directly as
opposed to indirectly through their authorizing or appointed LEA.17 For the purposes of
this paper, LEA status will only refer to the charter school special education designation.
A SELPA may consist of a single school district (“single district SELPA”) or a group of
school districts or county offices of education (“multidistrict SELPA”) (See Figure 1).
There are currently approximately 127 SELPAs that are made up of about 1200 LEAs in
the State.
Figure 1: California SELPA Structure
State and federal funding for special
education flow through these SELPAs,
and each SELPA develops a unique local
plan for allocating these funds to their
member LEAs. Receiving a portion of the
SELPA funding, each LEA delivers special
education services via a combination of
in-school personnel, SELPA or district-
level resources, and contracted service
providers. The SELPA structure was
developed prior to the growth of charter
17 CA EC §47651(a)
OVERVIEW OF POLICY LANDSCAPE
Page 10
schools and, in many cases, has proven to be a barrier to the growth of special education
populations within charters.
SPECIAL EDUCATION OPTIONS FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS
Similar to traditional district-operated public schools in the state, every California
charter school must be a member of a SELPA. However, the nature of that relationship
depends on the special education legal identity of the charter school.
Under California law, charter schools have two options for special education: operating as
part of a Local Education Agency (LEA) or as an independent LEA for special education.18
By default, all charter schools
operate as schools of their
authorizing LEA (or “schools of the
district”) and participate in the
SELPA in which their authorizer is a
member.19 LEA status and
responsibility to provide special
education services to students in the
charter school remains with the
district unless agreed to otherwise. This legal identity has major implications for charter
schools for the following reasons:
Since the district carries all responsibility for special education, it also retains all
of the special education funding for charter school students. Additionally, charter
schools are typically asked to contribute to the district-wide special education
costs out of their general education funds. This contribution can reach over
$1,500 for each student enrolled in the school, regardless of their special
education status, which can have an overwhelming fiscal impact on small charters
as compared to larger districts.20
In the “school of the district” arrangement, charter schools depend completely on
their authorizers for the special education portion of their program. They are
unable to hire special education personnel, determine student placement or
18 Education Code §47641 19 §47641(c) 20 In San Diego Unified School District, the amount of charter contribution for 2014-15 is approximately $1,500 per Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
OVERVIEW OF POLICY LANDSCAPE
Page 11
design innovative special education programs that allow them to serve a broad
range of student needs as they are bound to the policies and practices of their
authorizer.
As “schools of the district”, charter schools are also unable to participate in the
governance of their SELPA and thus are precluded from having any influence over
decision making that affects their school.
Charter schools in these arrangements often experience difficulty securing
appropriate, timely and consistent special education services for their students
due to the districts’ own financial and staffing constraints.21
Finally, this arrangement effectively denies students with disabilities the choice of
educational options available to their peers. Very few traditional district-operated
schools are equipped to serve every student and often rely on the district
infrastructure to provide the more specialized and costly services. Thus, rather
than create new special education programs on charter school campuses, school
districts opt to serve charter school students in existing district programs.
Consequently, many students are referred back to district programs when they
require a higher level of service than what is available at a charter school.
This combination of programmatic constraints has pushed charter schools to seek
alternative arrangements that offer more flexibility and autonomy in special education.
California law allows charter schools to obtain this autonomy by operating as an
independent LEA for special education purposes.22 (See Figure 2)
Figure 2: Charter School Options
As an LEA, the charter
school assumes full
responsibility for special
education. The charter
school is also provided
with state and federal
revenue to support the
delivery of special
21 Based on numerous requests for assistance made to California Charter School Association’s special education team. 22 § 47641(a)
OVERVIEW OF POLICY LANDSCAPE
Page 12
education services23 as well as an opportunity to participate in SELPA governance.
However, becoming an LEA for special education requires a charter school to exit the
authorizer’s SELPA and become accepted as an independent entity in another SELPA.
While California law requires that a request by a charter school to join a SELPA be treated
in the same manner as a similar request from a traditional school district,24 many SELPAs
do not allow charter schools to participate in the SELPA in this capacity. This was in large
part due to financial disincentives created by the state’s special education funding
provisions as well as concerns about how to fit single-site charter schools, along with
much larger districts into a SELPA governance structure that prioritizes equal
representation.25 Furthermore, historically, charters were required to stay within the
geographic boundaries of their SELPA and were prohibited from seeking membership in
a SELPA outside of their region. Without a membership in a SELPA, charter schools were
forced to remain “schools of the district” for special education purposes. As such, they
were limited in the special education services they could provide and the students they
could serve.
23 Approximately $650 per student, depending on the SELPA. 24 § 47645 25 L. M. Rhim and P. T. O’Neill, “Improving Access and Creating Exceptional Opportunities for Students with Disabilities in Public Charter Schools”, National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools, October 2013
CHANGES TO POLICY LANDSCAPE
Page 13
Changes to Policy Landscape
CREATION OF ACCESSIBLE OPTIONS FOR CHARTERS
In 2006, the California State Board of Education (SBE) began investigating whether
geographic proximity to a SELPA was necessary to provide students with the appropriate
special education services. To this end, the SBE established a pilot program allowing for
22 out-of-geographic region charter schools to become members of one of four pilot
program SELPAs: El Dorado County, Yuba County, Lodi Area Special Education Region,
and Desert Mountain. Following successful implementation of the pilot, in 2010 the SBE
lifted the pilot status allowing all charters schools the option of applying for LEA status
for special education purposes through independent membership in a SELPA.
CREATION OF AN “LEA-LIKE” OPTION
In 2011, the LAUSD reorganized its SELPA and created a model for combining charter
autonomy and flexibility with special education infrastructure. The new SELPA structure
created a continuum of options for charter schools, ranging from least autonomous
(Option 1) to most autonomous (Option 3/Charter Operated Program). (Figure 3)
Figure 3: LAUSD Continuum of Options
Option 3 is often referred to as
“LEA-like” as it offers the benefits
of LEA status in another SELPA,
while allowing for collaboration
under the umbrella of the existing
single-district SELPA. While
continuing to operate as “schools of
the district”, charter schools
selecting Option 3 bear full
responsibility for providing special
education services to their students
in exchange for receiving a large percentage of state and federal special education
funding. As specified in the education code26, charter schools that are members of Option
3 still contribute to overall district special education costs, however, they do it through an
26 EC §47646
CHANGES TO POLICY LANDSCAPE
Page 14
arrangement that offers benefits to both the district and the charters with a careful
balance of responsibility and funding. The innovative fiscal arrangement between the
charters and the authorizer allows charter schools to establish various shared funding
pools that support growth in programs for students identified with moderate to severe
disabilities and supplement non-public school costs and/or costs of due process. The
Option 3 structure also allows charters to invest in critical special education
infrastructure and take advantage of the economies of scale not possible with LEA status
alone.
CHANGES TO POLICY LANDSCAPE
Page 15
GROWTH IN LEA AND LEA-LIKE ARRANGEMENTS
Just a short time ago the vast majority of charter schools in California were completely
dependent on their authorizers for special education. With the growth in LEA and LEA-
like arrangements, over 30% of all charter schools, or nearly 50% of autonomous
charters27, now have access to a range of options for developing special education
expertise, building program capacity, and bolstering special education service provision
demonstrating that charter schools will embrace the opportunity to serve all students
when given an equitable arrangement. (See Figure 4)
Figure 4: Growth in LEA and LEA-like Charters for Special Education
27 The California Charter Schools Association defines fully autonomous charter schools as those that have an independent board of directors, do not operate under the local school district’s collective bargaining agreement, are directly funded by the state (as opposed to indirectly funded through the local school district).
CONNECTING POLICY AND DATA
Page 16
Connecting Policy and Data
The growth of charter schools in LEA and LEA-like arrangements in California presents a
unique opportunity to examine how a charter school’s legal identity impacts the
percentage and range of students with disabilities it serves. 28 This study could not have
been conducted until recently due to the lack of a significant body of longitudinal data
regarding the enrollment of students with disabilities in LEA and LEA-like charters (LEA
option was not available to most charters until 2010 and LEA-like option in LAUSD
started in 2011).
METHODOLOGY
The hypothesis for the study is as follows: 1) Charter schools that operate as “schools of
the district” for special education purposes face barriers to serving students with
disabilities; and 2) Once those barriers are removed by achieving LEA or LEA-like status,
charter schools will increase the percentage of students with disabilities and range of
disabilities served over time. The analyses in this study were carried out using a large
sample of longitudinal data for LEA charters provided by the El Dorado County Charter
SELPA (or EDCOE Charter SELPA) and LAUSD Option 3 (or LEA-like charters).29
The analyses show the percentages of students with disabilities served by participating
LEA or LEA-like member schools and school cohorts. The study also examines the
proportion of students by incidence of disability and draws comparisons of the relative
proportion of disability categories over time. Finally, the study runs a linear regression
model that measures the relationship between the length of time operating as an LEA
and the percentage of students with disabilities served.
28 While similar studies could be conducted in other states, it would be very difficult to control for other variables including authorizing structures, special education funding models, and a host of differing policies and regulations that govern the provision of special education. 29 El Dorado has been part of the original LEA pilot, so its dataset contains information on LEA charter schools dating back to 2006-07. The LAUSD data set contains data on LEA-like schools since 2010-11.
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 17
Analyses and Findings
ANALYSIS OF LEA FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION CHARTERS
The El Dorado Charter SELPA LEAs represent nearly 70% of all charters in California that
were LEAs for special education in 2013-14.30 The SELPA began in 2006 with 10 charter
schools serving approximately 2,600 students. By the 2013-14 school year, the SELPA
had grown to include 192 charter schools serving over 88,000 students.
Figure 5 below represents the percentage of students with disabilities served by charters
from 2006-07 to 2013-14 school years. The percentage of students with disabilities was
obtained by dividing the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA
schools 31by the total enrollment32 in these schools each year. The graph also shows the
proportion of students with higher-incidence (those that occur more frequently and are
typically milder) and lower-incidence disabilities 33(those that occur less frequently and
are typically more severe). For comparison purposes, the graph also shows the statewide
K-12 enrollment 34of students with disabilities over time. The gap between the
proportion of students with disabilities in LEA charter schools and statewide K-12
average proportion of students with disabilities has steadily narrowed from 2.4% in
2010-11 to 1.6% in 2013-14.
30 Our analysis for each year does not include charter LEAs for special education outside of El Dorado Charter SELPA due to the fact that their data was not accessible to us. 31 Reported in the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS) 32 Reported in the California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) 33 For the purposes of this study, the term “lower incidence” is different from “Low incidence disability” defined in the CA Education Code §56026.5. It represents all disability categories excluding Specific Learning Disability (SLD), Speech and Language Impairment (SLI) and Other Health Impairment (OHI). This methodology matches the one used by the Office of the Independent Monitor in LAUSD and was chosen for consistency and ease of comparison. 34 Statewide K-12 enrollment was obtained by retrieving overall enrollment and enrollment of SWD by grade rom CDE DataQuest, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest and subtracting ungraded students. This methodology is used to make a more equitable comparison as El Dorado charter schools do not serve students beyond K-12.
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 18
Figure 5: Percentage of students with disabilities in EDCOE LEAs
The percentage of students with disabilities in LEA charters has increased from 5.8% in
2006-07 to 8.7% in 2013-14. Most notably, the percentage of students with more severe
(lower-incidence) disabilities accounted for a large proportion of the increase (0.3% to
1.4%). When considering just the last 4 years, the percentage of students with disabilities
has grown from 7.5% to 8.7%. What’s more, the rate of growth in special education
enrollment has outpaced the growth in general education enrollment. The overall
enrollment in LEA schools has grown by 119% (from 40,431 in 2010-11 to 88,541in
2013-14) while the special education enrollment increased by 154% (from 3,025
students in 2010-11 to 7,670 in 203-14).
When analyzing data by school cohorts35, we saw that schools that operated as LEAs for
longer periods of time tended to serve higher percentages of students with disabilities.
(For detailed cohort data, see Appendix 1). To examine the value of the relationship
between length of time as an LEA and the percentage of students with disabilities served,
35 Cohorts were identified based on the year schools joined the El Dorado Charter SELPA (i.e. the 2009-10 cohort represents only the schools that joined the SELPA in 2009-10 and remained operational through 2012-13)
9.9% 9.8% 9.8% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 10.1%10.3%
5.8%
7.1% 7.1%
7.9%7.5%
7.7%8.2%
8.7%
5.5%
6.6% 6.5%
7.1%6.6% 6.6%
7.0%7.3%
0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
2006-07(10schools)
2007-08(17) 2008-09(23) 2009-10(46) 2010-11(106) 2011-12(138)
2012-13(171)
2013-14(192)
% K-12 students withdisabilities statewide
% Sudents withdisabilities in EDCOEcharters
% SLD,SLI,OHI (orhigher-incidencedisabilities)
% All other disabilities(or lower-incidencedisabilities)
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 19
we ran a baseline regression model as well as four robustness tests. The independent
variable is the number of years a charter school has been an LEA as of 2012-1336; the
dependent or outcome variable is the change in the percent of students with disabilities
from when the school first became an LEA to 2012-13 or the last year the school was
open. The regression measured the change in the percentage of students with disabilities
as the number of years operating as an LEA increased.
The baseline model finds that every additional year a charter school has been an LEA is
related to a 0.4% greater increase
in the percent of its student body
who have disabilities (detailed
descriptions of these analyses can
be found in Appendix 3). This
statistically significant
relationship becomes substantial
when we consider the cumulative impact over multiple years. A charter that was an LEA
for seven years will tend to see a 2% greater increase in the percent of students with
disabilities than a charter that was only an LEA for two years. To illustrate this with an
example, a charter school of 500 students, serving 35 students with disabilities (7%)
when it becomes an LEA, brings its population of students with disabilities up to 45
students (9%) after 5 years.37 The school builds its capacity to serve more students over
time; the development of programs and services happens in response to the needs of
students that come through the door. This analysis demonstrates that more autonomy in
special education is correlated with an increase in the charter school’s proportion of
students with disabilities. However, this increase does not happen overnight. Any new
LEA requires time to develop infrastructure and capacity in response to the evolving
needs of its students.
We also looked at the breakdown of the population of students with disabilities by
disability category over time (See Figure 6). There is a significant increase in the
proportion of students with a primary disability category of Autism, Emotional
Disturbance, Intellectual Disability, Hard of Hearing, and Visual Impairment. Particularly
36 This analysis was conducted prior to the availability of 2013-14 data. 37 Assuming the overall enrollment remains constant.
Charter autonomy in special education correlates
to a higher percentage and a broader range of
students with disabilities served over time.
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 20
notable is the increase of proportion of students identified with Autism (from 4.7% of
students with disabilities in 2010-11 to 7.2% of students with disabilities in 2013-14)
and Emotional Disturbance (from 3.2% of students with disabilities in 2010-11 to 4.4%
of students with disabilities in 2013-14). For comparison, in December of 2013, the
statewide incidence of Autism in the grades K-12 was 11.2%, and incidence of Emotional
Disturbance was 3.7%.38
Figure 6: Disability Categories in El Dorado Charter LEAs (2006 to 2013 change)
Simultaneously, the proportion of students identified with Specific Learning Disability
declined (from 58% of the total students with disabilities in 2010-11 to 51.6 % of
students with disabilities in 2013-14). For comparison, the statewide proportion of
students with Specific Learning Disability eligibility is 44%.21 (Information on the
proportion of students in each eligibility category can be found in Appendix 2). This drop
in the percentage of students with SLD is correlated with a proportionate increase in the
percentage of students with lower-incidence disabilities. Figure 7 depicts the trend in the
proportion of students with higher- and lower-incidence disabilities.
38 Retrieved from CDE DataQuest, December 1, 2012 CASEMIS http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest
0.7% 2.0%5.2%
22.2%
68.0%
3.2% 4.7%
11.3%
19.1%
58.0%
4.4%7.2%
14.7% 18.0%
51.6%
3.7%
11.2% 10.6%
20.3%
44.0%
ED (EmotionalDisturbance)
AU (Autism) OHI (Other HealthImpairment)
SLI (Speech andLanguage Impairment)
SLD (Specific LearningDisability)
EDCOE Charters 2006-07 (pilot years) EDCOE Charters 2010-11 (pilot lifted)
EDCOE Charters 2013-14 Statewide Incidence 2013-14
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 21
Figure 7. EDCOE Charter SELPA Proportion of Students with Higher-Incidence and
Lower-Incidence Disabilities31
To examine the
trends in the
proportion of more
difficult-to-serve
students within the
population of
students with
disabilities, we have
disaggregated the
population of
students with IEPs
into higher-incidence
and lower-incidence
categories.31 This
analysis shows a
steady increase of the
proportion of
students with more
severe disability
types and a
correlated decline in the proportion of students with milder disability types. In 2010,
only 11.6% of charter school special education population in the SELPA was identified
with lower-incidence disabilities; by 2013, their proportion has grown to 15.7% of the
special education population.
ANALYSIS OF LEA-LIKE CHARTERS
The analysis of LEA-like charters is based on data from the LAUSD Option 3/Charter
Operated Program arrangement described in the Policy Environment section of the
report. The first cohort of LEA-like charters included 47 schools; the membership grew
to 71 schools in the 2012-13 and to 82 schools in 2013-14. Figure 8 below depicts the
percentages of students with disabilities served by independent charter schools and
traditional district-operated schools in LAUSD.
4.6%6.5%
9.6% 9.4%11.6%
14.0% 15.0% 15.7%
95.4%93.5%
90.4% 90.6%88.4%
86.0% 85.0% 84.3%
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Lower-Incidence Disabilities in LEA Charters (MD, TBI, Deaf, VI, OI, HH, ID, ED, AU)
Higher-Incidence Disabilities in LEA Charters (SLD, SLI, OHI)
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 22
Figure 8: Percentage of Students with Disabilities in LAUSD Schools
Since the creation of Option 3, its member charter schools increased the percentage of
students with disabilities they serve from 8.1% to 10.2%. The overall student enrollment
in Option 3 schools has increased by 96%, from 26,164 to 51,251 students; at the same
time, the number of students with disabilities has grown by 147%, from 2,114 to 5,215
students. 39 Unlike El Dorado LEAs that are located throughout the state, Option 3 LEA-
like charters are compared to enrollment in LAUSD, in an effort to take into account
regional demographics (For more information see Appendix 4). The gap in the
proportion of students with disabilities enrolled in Option 3 charter schools as compared
to K-12 district enrollment has narrowed from 3.4% in 2010-11 to 1.5% in 2013-14.
In addition to the increase in the percentage of students with disabilities in Option 3
charters, there is also an increase in the range of disabilities represented (See Figure 9).
The percentage of students with lower-incidence or more severe disabilities has
39 According to LAUSD SELPA data from the spring pupil count in 2011, 2012, 2012, and 2014 (Welligent and CASEMIS) provided by the Special Education Division * 2010-11 data is prior to Joining Option 3 ** Data was obtained by retrieving total enrollment and enrollment of SWD by grade rom CDE DataQuest, http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest and subtracting ungraded students. This methodology is used to make a more equitable comparison as LAUSD charter schools generally do not serve students beyond K-12. Thus, only district students in grades K-12 were included.
8.2% 8.2% 8.1%
11.5%
8.6% 8.4%9.0%
11.6%
9.3% 9.0%
9.9%
11.7%
9.8% 9.4%10.2%
11.7%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
All LAUSD Charters* Non-Option 3 Charters Option 3 LEA-like** All LAUSD Schools (K-12)***
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 23
increased at a higher rate in Option 3 schools (as compared to other independent
charters).
Figure 9: Percentage of Students with Lower-Incidence Disabilities in LAUSD Charters
Option 3 LEA-like
charters increased the
proportion of students
with lower-incidence
disabilities from 1.21% of
total student population
in 2010-11 to 1.64% of
total student population
in 2012-1340, constituting
an increase of more than
35%. The proportion of
this population remained
relatively stable (at 1.06-1.09%) for non-Option 3 independent charters.
While these percentages may not seem to represent a significant increase, lower-
incidence disabilities are, in fact, relatively uncommon. To illustrate the actual changes in
the proportion of disability types served by Option 3 schools, we’ve analyzed the
composition of the population of students with disabilities between 2010-11 and 2012-
13 (See Figure 10). The largest changes are evident in the shrinking proportion of
students identified with Specific Learning Disability (from 62.3% down to 58.9%), and an
increasing proportion of students identified with Other Health Impairment (from 13.6%
to 15.9%) and Autism (from 7.1% to 9.4%).
For comparison, in December of 2012, the LAUSD K-12 incidence of Autism was 14%,
incidence of Other Health Impairment was 10.7% and incidence of Specific Learning
Disability eligibility was 51.3%, according to CDE.41 (For more incidence data, see
Appendix 4.)
40 2013-14 data that was provided by LAUSD was from a different reporting period and thus not included in this comparison. 41 Retrieved from CDE DataQuest, December 1, 2012 CASEMIS http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest
1.21%
1.47%
1.64%
1.09% 1.09% 1.06%
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1.80%
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Option 3 Members (2010-11 data is prior to joining Option 3)
Independent Charters Excluding Option 3
ANALYSES AND FINDINGS
Page 24
Figure 10: Comparison of Disability Categories over Time (LAUSD Option 3)
42
The trends in LEA-like schools mirror the trends seen in LEA schools. The data points
indicate that charter schools that achieve more autonomy and responsibility in special
education through an LEA for special education or LEA-Like arrangement, serve a higher
percentage and a broader range of students with disabilities over time.
42 2013-14 data from the LAUSD Special Ed Division was provided for the December 1st reporting period versus April 15th reporting period as used in previous years; thus, it was omitted to preserve the integrity of the comparison.
9.1% 8.9% 8.6%
13.6% 13.3% 15.9%
62.3% 61.5% 58.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
SLD (Specific Learning Disability)
OHI (Other Health Impairment)
SLI (Speech and LangaugeImpairment)
AUT (Autism)
MR/ID (Intellectual Disability)
DEA/HOH (Deaf/Hard of Hearing)
ED (Emotional Distrurbance)
OI (Orthopedic Impairment)
DD (Developmental Delay)
MDH/MDO (Multiple Disabilities)
VI (Visual Impairment)
TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury)
16.4% 14.9% 16.6%
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 25
Conclusions and Recommendations
CONCLUSIONS
Intended as models for innovation, charter schools are uniquely designed to
provide individualized support to all students – including those with exceptional
needs. However, statewide policies for special education governance and funding
have historically deprived charter schools of the autonomy and flexibility
necessary to design and implement innovative special education programs and
services for all students. In turn, charter schools have been limited in their ability
to serve a representative population of students with disabilities. The policy
environment shifted in 2010 when the State Board of Education approved an
option that allowed more charters to separate from their authorizer and become
their own LEAs for special education. A major local policy shift also happened in
Los Angeles Unified around the same time, when the district created a semi-
autonomous “LEA-like” option for charters.
One of the primary contributing factors for the special education gap in
California between traditional and charter public schools is the presence of
structural barriers that dictate a charter school’s legal identity. Charter
schools that operate as “schools of the district” for special education are
completely dependent on their authorizer for the special education portion of
their program. This dependency prevents charters from accessing special
education funding, hiring special education staff, participating in governance, and
designing and implementing their own programs that allow them to meet the
needs of all of their students.
Charter schools that achieve autonomy in special education through LEA status
increase the percentage and range of students with disabilities they serve. In El
Dorado Charter SELPA LEAs for special education, the percentage of students
with disabilities increased from 7.5% in 2010-11 to 8.7% in 2013-14. Most
notably, there has been a 55% increase in the percentage of students with most
severe (lower-incidence) disabilities.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 26
The increase in the percentage and range of students with disabilities happens
incrementally over time, as charters begin to develop their own special education
infrastructure and expertise as independent LEAs for special education. Our
research indicates that the longer a school operates as an LEA, the higher the
percentage of students with disabilities served. After 5 years as an LEA, the
average increase in population of students with disabilities is 2% of the total
student population.
Charter schools that operate in an LEA-like arrangement show similar gains.
Schools that have achieved more autonomy in LAUSD by joining Option 3, have
increased the percentage of students with disabilities they serve by from 8.1% to
10.2%. The overall student enrollment in Option 3 schools has increased by 96%,
from 26,164 to 51,251 students; at the same time, the number of students with
disabilities has grown by 147%, from 2,114 to 5,215 students. The percentage of
students with more severe needs has increased by 35%.
Approximately 30% of all charter schools or nearly 50% of autonomous43 charter
schools in California have achieved LEA or LEA-like status in nearly 30 (out of
about 130) SELPAs across the state. While much progress has been made, there is
a lot more work to be done to ensure that more charter schools have the needed
infrastructure and flexibility to serve the needs of all students.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Continue to address systemic barriers to autonomy
Charter schools in California continue to face the following barriers to autonomy
and responsibility in special education, which have a direct impact on their ability
to serve a larger percentage and range of students with disabilities:
1. Charter schools operating as “school of the district” are dependent on their
authorizer for special education, and have little to no control over the
provision of special education. At the same time, many charter schools
43 The California Charter Schools Association defines fully autonomous charter schools as those that have an independent board of directors, do not operate under the local school district’s collective bargaining agreement, are directly funded by the state (as opposed to indirectly funded through the local school district).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 27
cannot leave their authorizing district to become their own LEAs for
special education due to small size, limited capacity to provide a full
continuum of services, and significant financial risk.
2. The vast majority of SELPAs in the state still do not accept charter schools
as LEAs for special education.
3. Charter authorizers have financial disincentives to develop special
education programs on charter school sites due to their own fiscal and
staffing constraints caused by inefficiencies in state and federal special
education funding models.
4. Funding levels for special education services vary greatly across the state
and are grossly inadequate.
We recommend that legislators and policymakers address these challenges
through removing financial disincentives to SELPAs for accepting charter LEAs
and through encouraging development of innovative structures that would allow
charters access to equitable special education funding and representation in
governance.
One way to affect change in this area is by developing flexible and adaptable
funding models grounded in local control and accountability. Currently, special
education revenue calculations are based on prior year enrollment and do not
provide timely adjustments to funding when there are significant changes in
service needs. A similar issue is created by the fact that growing and declining
enrollment is adjusted at the SELPA level, which prevents more targeted funding
systems to LEAs, both district and charter.
Another issue that requires action is the disparity of funding rates across the
SELPAs. It is critical that charter schools have access to adequate and equitable
funds for special education programs regardless of the region they set out to
operate in. Both of these recommendations are closely aligned with the
recommendations developed by the Statewide Special Education Task Force,
which proposes to re-design the special education funding system to achieve
greater equity, accountability, and local control. 44
44 One System: Reforming Education to Serve All Students, Report of California’s Statewide Task Force on Special Education, March 2015.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 28
We further recommend that local authorizers and SELPAs seize the tremendous
opportunity to empower charters to serve a higher percentage and broader range
of students and to truly add value to the local options for families as part of the
authorizer’s continuum of programs. This can be achieved through partnering
with charter schools to develop more flexible LEA-like special education
arrangements that balance charter schools’ access to special education funding
with responsibility for providing services.
Create opportunities to build infrastructure and mitigate risk
Achieving an LEA status removes structural barriers to charter school autonomy
in special education. However, removal of those barriers alone does not create the
critical infrastructure needed to provide a full continuum of services. In fact, very
few traditional schools are equipped to serve every student and often rely on the
district or SELPA infrastructure to provide the more specialized and costly
services. Thus, we recommend that charter schools that gain special education
autonomy do any/all of the following:
o Create economies of scale by establishing new or joining existing charter
school consortia or cooperatives;
o Negotiate service-sharing agreements with their districts, SELPAs, or other
charters;
o Establish shared funding pools to mitigate risk;
o Partner with community organizations or other charters to invest in the
development of charter special education infrastructure, including effective
and innovative special education programs or delivery models.
Continue to study the underlying causes of the special education gap and
examine the connections between school practices and students outcomes
Structural barriers to autonomy described above are few of the most important
factors contributing to the differences in special education enrollment between
charter and traditional public schools. However, research indicates that they are
not the only factors. We know that differences in school practices, as well as
parent choice, affect the percentage of students classified for special education.45
45 “Why the Gap Special Education and New York City Charter Schools”, Marcus A. Winters, CRPE, September 2013.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 29
We recommend conducting additional analyses of enrollment over time,
identification, intervention, and service provision of special education in charter
schools. More specifically, we recommend delving into the following questions:
o How do differences in school classification practices and parent choice
affect the percentage of students with disabilities in California charters?
o Do classification rates in California charter schools differ as children
progress through elementary, middle, and high school? If so, what are the
implications of these differences?
o What is the effect of charter school autonomy for special education on
student outcomes?
o What is the impact of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support, Response to
Intervention, or other innovative and proactive service-delivery models on
identification rates and student outcomes?
o What is the effect of inclusive philosophy and instructional practices on
identification rates and student outcomes? 46
A careful analysis of these factors will help us determine which practices and
structures move us closer to the ultimate goal—better educational options and
brighter futures for our state’s exceptional students.
46 These questions are of particular interest as they also echo the priority areas outlined in the recommendations of the Statewide Special Education Task Force (One System: Reforming Education to Serve All Students, Report of California’s Statewide Task Force on Special Education, March 2015.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND CONTACTS
Page 30
Acknowledgements and Contacts
KATE DOVE LEAD AUTHOR/ANALYST
ALLISON MAGILL AUTHOR
GINA PLATE TEAM LEAD/REVIEWER
Special Education Advisor
Legal Counsel
Sr. Special Education Advisor
DOMINIC ZARECKI CONTRIBUTOR/ANALYST
MATT TAYLOR
REVIEWER/ANALYST
ALLISON KENDA
TEAM LEAD/REVIEWER
Sr. Research Analyst
Director of Research
Managing Director, APM
Special Thanks
David Toston and Dr. Vicki Barber from El Dorado County Charter SELPA for sharing data and expertise that
made this report possible.
Sharyn Howell and Sydney Quon from LAUSD SELPA for sharing data related to Los Angeles Option 3 (LEA-
like) charter schools.
Organization Information
California Charter Schools Association
205 E. 1st St, Suite 1000, Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 244-1446
www.calcharters.org
APPENDICES
Page 31
Appendices
APPENDIX 1: El Dorado Charter SELPA School Cohort Data
2011-12 Cohort Data 2011-12 2012-13
EDCOE Number of charters 32 32
CBEDS count 9327 11503
Students with disabilities 677 880
% All students with disabilities 7.3% 7.7%
SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 567 720
% SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 6.1% 6.3%
All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities) 110 160
% All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities) 1.2% 1.4%
*33 schools were part of the 10-11 cohort, but 1 of them had closed between 11-12 and 12-13. The analysis is based on the remaining 32.
2010-11 Cohort Data 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
EDCOE Number of charters 55 55 55
CBEDS count 21663 24879 26126
Students with disabilities 1476 1764 2014
% All students with disabilities 6.8% 7.1% 7.7%
SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 1311 1531 1732
% SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 6.1% 6.2% 6.6%
All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities) 165 233 282
% All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities)
0.8% 0.9% 1.1%
*60 schools were part of the 10-11 cohort, but 5 of them had closed between 10-11 and 12-13. The analysis is based on the remaining 55.
2009-10 Cohort Data 2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
EDCOE Number of charters 23 23 23 23
CBEDS count 5972 6757 7622 8240
Students with disabilities 474 595 717 796
% All students with disabilities 7.9% 8.8% 9.4% 9.7%
SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 439 533 615 682
APPENDICES
Page 32
% SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 7.4% 7.9% 8.1% 8.3%
All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities) 35 62 102 115
% All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities) 0.6% 0.9% 1.3% 1.4%
2008-09 Cohort Data 2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
EDCOE Number of charters 23 23 23 23 23
CBEDS count 8616 8834 10138 11067 11369
Students with disabilities 616 692 810 921 969
% All students with disabilities 7.1% 7.8% 8.0% 8.3% 8.5%
SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 557 617 707 811 833
% SLD, SLI, OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities) 6.5% 7.0% 7.0% 7.3% 7.3%
All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities)
59 75 103 110 139
% All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities)
0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.2%
APPENDIX 2: El Dorado Charter SELPA Disability Data
Disability Category 2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
MD (Multiple Disability) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% Deaf 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% VI (Visual Impairment) 0.0% 0.9% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% OI (Orthopedic Impairment) 1.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% HH (Hard of Hearing) 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% 1.2% 1.3% 1.0% 0.9% ID (Intellectual Disability) 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% ED (Emotional Disturbance) 0.7% 1.9% 5.2% 4.0% 3.2% 3.6% 4.3% 4.4% AU (Autism) 2.0% 2.8% 2.4% 2.5% 4.7% 6.1% 6.6% 7.2% OHI (Other Health Impairment) 5.2% 9.9% 12.0% 10.4% 11.3% 13.0% 14.0% 14.7% SLI (Speech and Language) 22.2% 23.5% 22.1% 19.5% 19.1% 19.5% 18.3% 18.0% SLD (Specific Learning Disability) 68.0% 60.1% 56.3% 60.7% 58.0% 53.4% 52.7% 51.6%
APPENDICES
Page 33
Disability Category EDCOE Charters 2006-07
EDCOE Charters 2012-13
EDCOE Charters 2013-14
Statewide Incidence 2013-14 K-12
MD (Multiple Disability) 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.7%
TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Deaf 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.5%
VI (Visual Impairment) 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5%
OI (Orthopedic Impairment) 1.3% 0.7% 0.8% 1.6%
HH (Hard of Hearing) 0.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.3%
ID (Intellectual Disability) 0.0% 1.4% 1.6% 5.4%
ED (Emotional Disturbance) 0.7% 4.3% 4.4% 3.7%
AU (Autism) 2.0% 6.6% 7.2% 11.2%
OHI (Other Health Impairment) 5.2% 14.0% 14.7% 10.6%
SLI (Speech and Language Impairment)
22.2% 18.3% 18.0% 20.3%
SLD (Specific Learning Disability)
68.0% 52.7% 51.6% 44.0%
Statewide Incidence, December 1, 2013 CASEMIS. Retrieved from: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Statewide Comparison 2006-07(10 schools)
2007-08(17)
2008-09(23)
2009-10(46)
2010-11(106)
2011-12 (138)
2012-13 (171)
2013-14 (192)
% K-12 students with disabilities statewide
9.9% 9.8% 9.8% 9.9% 9.9% 9.9% 10.1% 10.3%
% All students with disabilities
5.8% 7.1% 7.1% 7.9% 7.5% 7.7% 8.2% 8.7%
% SLD,SLI,OHI (or higher-incidence disabilities)
5.5% 6.6% 6.5% 7.1% 6.6% 6.6% 7.0% 1.3%
% All other disabilities (or lower-incidence disabilities)
0.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4%
APPENDICES
Page 34
APPENDIX 3: Regression Analysis
In order to quantify the relationship between LEA status and students with disabilities, we run a
baseline model as well as four robustness tests. All of the models are ordinary least squares
regressions that include just two variables. The independent variable is the number of years a
charter school has been an LEA as of 2012-13, and its distribution is made clear in Table X. The
dependent or outcome variable is the change in the percent of students in the school who have
disabilities from when the school first became an LEA to 2012-13 or the last year the school was
open. Table 1 and figure 2 below show the distribution of these two variables, respectively, and
table 3 reports the results from the five regression models.
Table 1: Years charter schools have been LEAs as of 2012-13
# of Years as an LEA
# of Schools
% of Total
2 37 27%
3 55 40%
4 23 17%
5 7 5%
6 7 5%
7 9 7%
Figure 2: Histogram of Changes in the Percent of Students with Disabilities
0
.05
.1
.15
Den
sity
-10 -5 0 5 10 15Change in the % of Students with Disabilities
APPENDICES
Page 35
Table 3: The Relationship between LEA Status and Percent of Students with Disabilities
Model 1
Baseline
2
No Extremes
3
No 7-Year LEAs
4
2-4 Year LEAs
5
When LEA Began
Outcome Change in % with Disabilities % with Disabilities
Years as an LEA .376**
[.188]
.439**
[.167]
.544**
[.250]
.768*
[.408]
-.209
[.197]
Observations 138 136 129 115 138
Adjusted R-squared .022 .042 .029 .022 .001
Notes: All models use bivariate ordinary least squares regressions. The Baseline Model (1) includes all
charter schools that had been an LEA for at least two years as of 2012-13. Models 2-4 exclude subsets of
charters. Models 1 and 5 analyze the same universe of schools, but the outcome in Model 5 is the percent of
students with disabilities when the charter school became an LEA. * p<.1, ** p<.05, *** p<.01
The baseline model finds that every additional year a charter school has been an LEA is related to
a 0.4% greater increase in the percent of its student body who have disabilities. This statistically
significant relationship becomes substantial when we consider the cumulative impact over
multiple years. A charter that was an LEA for seven years will tend to see a 2% greater increase
in the percent of students with disabilities than a charter that was only an LEA for two years.
The figure and table above suggest that this relationship may be driven by a small group of
outliers. The figure shows that two schools experienced relatively extreme changes (-8% and
+15%) in the percent of students who have disabilities, and these outliers can have an outsized
influence on the results of the baseline model. Model 2 therefore excludes these two outliers and
finds a statistically equivalent relationship between length of time as an LEA and the change in
SPED population. The table above reveals an uneven distribution in the number of years that
charters have enjoyed LEA status. Only 7% of these 138 charters had been an LEA for 7 years as
of 2012-13, and only 17% of these 138 schools had been an LEA for over four years. Models 3
and 4 exclude these subsets of charters and produce even higher coefficients than the baseline
model. The result for Model 4 is slightly less statistically significant, but this is somewhat caused
by having 17% fewer observations than the baseline model. These robustness tests suggest that
our baseline model may underestimate the relationship between length of time with LEA status
and the change in percent of students with disabilities.
There is one important alternative hypothesis we can test. It is possible that schools that
achieved LEA status 4 or more years ago tended to start with relatively small proportions of
students with disabilities, while schools that achieved LEA status in the past 2 or 3 years started
with relatively high percentages of these students. If this is true, then this difference in start
APPENDICES
Page 36
points could explain the different rates of change. We might expect schools with relatively low
percentages of students with disabilities to experience higher rates of change. Model 5 examines
this alternative hypothesis by testing the relationship between years as an LEA and the percent of
students with disabilities when charters first became LEAs. The coefficient is insignificant and
the sign is negative, which demonstrates that the alternative hypothesis is untrue. Despite having
similar starting points, charters that have been an LEA for a longer period of time have
experiences larger increases in the percent of students with disabilities.
LIMITATIONS
Data Availability
Our analyses are limited to charter schools that become LEAs in El Dorado Charter SELPA
between 2006-07 and 2012-13. 47In 2012-13 those charter LEAs comprised about 70% of all
charter LEAs in the state. Data for other SELPAs that have charter LEAs was not available at this
time. Additionally, we did not have data for all charter schools that did not become LEAs. The only
option, therefore, was to conduct an analysis of the length of time the El Dorado SELPA charter
schools have been LEAs and the relative proportion and range of students with disabilities they
served over time. If similar data for all schools was available, we could compare these charters to
similar schools that did not become LEAs.
Non-Random Assignment
If this data followed the ideal experimental design, then the number of years a school was an LEA
would be random. This is not reality. Various actors, including charter school leaders, had
control over when particular schools acquired LEA status. Our conclusion is only in danger if the
non-random selection biases the rate at which the change in special education population would
occur. Regression Model 5 finds that one alternative hypothesis – that schools with longer
periods as LEAs started with relatively low levels of SPED students – is false. Another hypothesis
related to non-random assignment is that the charter leaders most interested in increasing their
share of percent students with special needs worked hard to acquire LEA status early. This
hypothesis is hard to test directly, but Model 4 – which only looks at charters that were LEAs for
less than five years – shows that the relationship holds even when we exclude the oldest LEAs.
Causation
Correlation does not equal causation. Our analyses show a statistically significant relationship
between length of time as an LEA and the change in the percent of students with disabilities. The
regression models by themselves do not prove that gaining LEA status causes the increase in
47 Note that the regression analysis was completed prior to receiving 2013-14 data.
APPENDICES
Page 37
percent of students with special needs. In order to do that, we need to use process tracing to
uncover the causal mechanisms that connect these two variables. Case studies can provide this
qualitative evidence, but this type of analysis is beyond the scope of this study.
Scope of the Argument
Our quantitative evidence shows that enjoying LEA status for a longer period is related to larger
increases in the percent of students with disabilities; however our analysis is limited in scope. It
is possible that all charter schools would experience comparable increases in their percent of
students with disabilities if they achieved LEA status, but more data and experimentation with
LEA status is needed before we can know that with certainty.
APPENDIX 4: LAUSD Disability Data
Option 3 Schools Eligibility Categories Incidence 2010-11
Incidence 2011-12
Incidence 2012-13
TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) 0.1% 0.2% 0.2%
VI (Visual Impairment) 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%
MDH/MDO (Multiple Disabilities) 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%
DD (Developmental Delay) 0.6% 0.7% 0.2%
OI (Orthopedic Impairment) 0.4% 0.4% 0.5%
ED (Emotional Disturbance) 0.9% 1.5% 1.4%
DEA/HOH (Deaf/Hard of Hearing) 1.9% 1.8% 1.5%
MR/ID (Intellectual Disability) 3.1% 3.2% 2.6%
AUT (Autism) 7.1% 8.0% 9.4%
SLI (Speech and Language Impairment) 9.1% 8.9% 8.6%
OHI (Other Health Impairment) 13.6% 13.3% 15.9%
SLD (Specific Learning Disability) 62.3% 61.5% 58.9%
Eligibility LAUSD # 2012-13
Incidence % 2012-13
ID 4097 5.4%
HH 998 1.3%
DEAF 303 0.4%
SLI 8401 11.1%
VI 397 0.5%
ED 1843 2.4%
OI 2022 2.7%
OHI 8105 10.7%
SLD 38991 51.3%
APPENDICES
Page 38
DB and MD 0 0.0%
AUT 10768 14.2%
TBI 63 0.1%
LAUSD Total (K-12) 75988 100.0% LAUSD Incidence, December 1, 2012 CASEMIS. Retrieved from: http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest CDE does not report district data by grade and disability. The numbers were estimated by eliminating students 0-4 years old.
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
CBEDS #
SWD %
SWD CBEDS
# SWD
% SWD
CBEDS #
SWD %
SWD CBEDS
# SWD
% SWD
All Charters 69,444 5,699 8.2% 82,888 7,143 8.6% 88,613 8,244 9.3% 94,940 9,333 9.8%
Non-Option 3 Indep. Charters
43,280 3,585 8.3% 53,802 4,523 8.4% 47,805 4,210 9.0% 43,689 4,118 9.4%
Option 3 LEA-like* 26,164 2,114 8.1% 29,086 2,620 9.0% 40,808 4,034 9.9% 51,251 5,215 10.2%
All Public K-12 Schools in the District** (incl. charter)
660,954 75,918 11.5% 655,684 75,801 11.6% 648,833 76,104 11.7% 647,111 75,636 11.7%
All Public Schools in the District (incl. pre-K, adult, and special ed centers)
667,251 82,215 12.3% 662,140 82,257 12.4% 655,494 82,765 12.6% 653,826 82,351 12.6%
* 2010-11 Option 3 Data is prior to joining Option 3 ** Since IDEA applies to individuals with disabilities from 0-22 years old and charter programs are limited to K-12 education, we have narrowed our comparison to only LAUSD K-12 schools. The data was derived by subtracting ungraded special education students (primarily 0-5 year olds). Data Source: Retrieved from CDE DataQuest, December 1, 2010, 2011, 2012 CASEMIS http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest Data for charters was obtained from the LAUSD Office of the Independent Monitor Report: http://oimla.com/pdf/20141010/AnnualReport20132014_Final.pdf and the LAUSD Scpecial Education Division
